European Arrest Warrant

Lord Glentoran: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they share the view of the Justice Minister of the Republic that Xwe are moving inexorably towards a European Union Arrest Warrant" and, if so, what protection in United Kingdom courts a British citizen would have against the execution of such a warrant.

Lord Rooker: The framework decision on a European arrest warrant has not yet been agreed, but the Government support the proposals for a European arrest warrant and are working to achieve political agreement at the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council on 6-7 December in Brussels, as announced at the Extraordinary JHA Council on 20 September 2001.
	The framework decision is intended to create a system enabling faster procedures for the surrender of a fugitive as between EU member states. Protection for the individual is provided in the domestic incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into the requesting state's criminal justice system, rather than before the courts in the United Kingdom. This is the principle of mutual recognition, on the basis of which we would similarly expect our European Union partners to return those whom we want to bring before our courts to stand trial.
	The framework decision as currently drafted provides for non-execution of a European arrest warrant where its subject has already been acquitted or convicted of the same offence or in relation to an offence committed below the age of criminal responsibility in the member state from where surrender is sought.

European Arrest Warrant

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the question asked by Lord Pearson of Rannoch on 19 November (HL Deb, col. 979), whether the United Kingdom is still able to refuse to participate in the framework decision on the proposed European Union arrest warrant; and, if so, under what clauses in the European treaties could it do so.

Lord Rooker: The legal basis for the framework decision on the European arrest warrant is the Treaty on European Union, Articles 31(a) and (b) and 34 (2) (b). Article 34 (2) requires that member states must act unanimously in the adoption of a framework decision. The Government support the proposals for a European arrest warrant and are working to achieve political agreement at the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council on 6-7 December in Brussels, as announced at the Extraordinary JHA Council on 20 September 2001.

Machine-readable Passports

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which countries currently issue machine-readable passports; and which European Union countries currently record electronically the arrival of non-European Union passport holders from non-European Union points of origin.

Lord Rooker: According to information supplied to the Immigration Service by the security printing industry, the following 100 countries are believed to issue machine-readable passports: Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, China, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Estonia, El Salvador, France, Finland, Fiji, Gambia, Germany, Greece, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Hong Kong SAR, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Lesotho, Macau, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mali, Mauritius, Malawi, Moldova, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Nigeria, Namibia, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Panama, Palestinian Authority, Poland, Portugal, Peru, Qatar, Romania, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Tanzania, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uganda, United Kingdom, Ukraine, United States, Vietnam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
	Information concerning which European Union countries record electronically the arrival of non-European Union passport holders from non-European Union points of origin is not currently available. While the United Kingdom does not record arrivals electronically, the United Kingdom Immigration Services does use readers to check the details of those passengers holding machine-readable passports against its warnings index database and it is believed that a number of other European Union countries do likewise.

Offenders: Work-experience

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are making provision for work-experience for previously unemployed convicted offenders and for those leaving penal institutions without jobs to go to:
	(a) in the public sector; and
	(b) in the private sector;
	and, if so, how.

Lord Rooker: The Prison Service and National Probation Service (NPS) are committed to improving the employment and employability of offenders. Previous research suggests that 90 per cent of prisoners are likely to face unemployment on release from custody. The Prison Service has a target of doubling the number of prisoners getting jobs on release by April 2004 and is investing £30 million in a custody to work programme to achieve this.
	A key element is improving the basic skills of offenders. The Prison Service has stringent targets to improve the educational and vocational qualifications of offenders with 18,000 completions of level 2 basic and key skills awards in 2001–02. The NPS has targets of 6,000 completions of level 2 basic skills awards in 2002–03 and 12,000 completions in 2003–04.
	The Prison Service and NPS are working together to develop strategies which will address resettlement issues and strengthen joint working partnerships. A NPS employment pathfinder is being developed to pilot the effectiveness of tools and inter-agency arrangements for assessing offenders' employment needs and managing interventions accordingly. In addition, a joint Prison and Probation Service resettlement pathfinder has been established to tackle practical resettlement issues such as finding and retaining appropriate employment and making sure this work develops seamlessly from custody to the community.

Thames Valley Police: Firearms Licensing

Lord Burnham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many applications have been made by the Chief Constable of the Thames Valley police force for additional staff in the firearms licensing department; and how these are to be financed.

Lord Rooker: It is for individual chief officers to determine the staffing arrangements within their force and the chief constable does not have to apply for additional staff for the firearms licensing department. I understand that the Thames Valley Police Firearms Department has a current establishment of 16 civilian personnel and two full-time police officers, plus two part-time staff. Within this establishment there are 10 full-time firearms inquiry officers (including the two police officers) based upon 10 police areas. The establishment figure has remained the same for three consecutive years.
	In recent months a further review of staffing levels has been carried out and an increase in the number of firearms inquiry officers is currently under consideration.

Retail Crime Survey

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What data they have, for each of the last five years, on (a) the cost to retail traders resulting from customer theft, robbery and till snatches, and (b) expenditure by retail traders on crime prevention measures; and whether they intend taking any further action to assist retail traders in the prevention of crime.

Lord Rooker: The Retail Crime Survey 2000, carried out by the British Retail Consortium, includes the amounts for the 1999 and 2000 calendar years, which are given in the following table:
	
		
			  1999 2000 
			 Values of losses (£000s) 
			 Customer theft 634,000 746,000 
			  
			 Robbery 4,350 3,700 
			  
			 Till snatches 428 635 
			  
			 Cost of crime prevention (£000s) 554,000 626,000 
		
	
	The above crime prevention costs address all types of crime against retailers, not just those given above.
	Levels of expenditure on crime prevention matters by retailers are essentially a private matter for them.
	We have, however, established the Retail Crime Reduction Action Team which operates across sector boundaries to reduce retail crime and develop intervention strategies aimed at preventing the occurrence of retail crime. It has produced a detailed guide on how to go about setting up and operating a local retail crime reduction partnership, and continues to assist with the development of these. There are now some 250 such partnerships covering major shopping centres in England and Wales. The team also supports the Safer Shopping Award which recognises the achievement of good overall security standards in shopping centres and gives active support to the work of Crime Concern in developing primary action groups aimed at deflecting young people from becoming involved in thefts from shops.
	We are also providing funding of £15 million over three years for a project to improve security of small retailers in the most deprived areas throughout England and Wales, with £3 million to be spent this financial year and £6 million for each of the years 2002–03 and 2003–04. The money will be used to help retailers to enhance security of their premises by installing additional locks or toughened glass, or may be used to make improvements to their immediate environment. We are currently working with local communities to identify specific sites which can most benefit from the scheme.

Passport Applications

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In what proportion of applications for United Kingdom passports a check is made on the credentials of referees for the applicants.

Lord Rooker: The requirement for a referee or countersignatory for passport applications applies to first time applications for adults and children, to applications to replace lost, stolen or damaged passports, and for renewal applicants whose appearance has significantly changed. These applications represent around 50 per cent of the business of the UK Passport Service.
	Various checks on the acceptability of a countersignatory are undertaken on all such applications through the passport issuing process. Some checks are automatic; others are undertaken at the discretion of passport examiners. These checks include formal checks on the countersignatory's credentials. Because they are part of the wider examination process these particular checks are not separately recorded.

Passport Applications

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many applications were made in the most recent 12 month period for which figures are available for United Kingdom passports, showing separately (a) the number of first time applications and (b) applications for passport renewal, and giving the number refused in each instance.

Lord Rooker: The total number of passport applications made in the 12 month period November 2000 to October 2001 was 5,581,132, of which 2,653,544 were first time applications and 2,488,318 were renewals. The number of refusals was 2,371. A breakdown between first time and renewal applications cannot be provided but most refusals would be on first time applications.

Passports Lost or Stolen

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many current United Kingdom passports remain missing from those which have been reported lost or stolen.

Lord Rooker: The United Kingdom Passport Service does not routinely collate information relating to total recoveries of passports recorded as lost or stolen. Figures for passports reported as lost which have not been recovered and are still missing are not therefore available.
	All passports reported lost and stolen are cancelled on the Passport Service's systems. Also the new digital passport has enhanced security features which make it extremely difficult for someone who is in possession of a stolen passport to alter the document for use in a false identity.

UK Passport Holders: Notification of Death

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Rooker on 14 November (WA 82), whether it is the case that in less than 10 per cent of cases of deaths of holders of valid United Kingdom passports the passports are returned for cancellation; if so, whether they regard this as satisfactory; and, whether they intend to take steps to deal with this situation.

Lord Rooker: There are no arrangements requiring the Government to be routinely notified of the death of a United Kingdom passport holder. Therefore, it is not possible to establish the proportion of cases in which a passport is returned for cancellation following the death of the holder.
	The United Kingdom Passport Service believes it would be helpful to know of all deaths of United Kingdom passport holders and is considering what measures it can take to achieve this.

Extradition: Application of Death Penalty

Lord Rotherwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which are the countries to which the United Kingdom might not extradite persons due to the death penalty.

Lord Rooker: The Extradition Act 1989 provides that extradition may be refused if the fugitive stands accused or convicted of an offence for which he could be or has been sentenced to death. This discretion must be interpreted in the light of the wording of the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights which outlaws the application of the death penalty and to which the United Kingdom is a signatory. This Government will therefore refuse to extradite persons to any jurisdiction where the offence for which they could be or have been tried carries the death penalty unless sufficient assurances are provided by a requesting state that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out.
	On the rare occasions where the death penalty has been an issue in an extradition case we have always been able to obtain sufficient assurances.

Abu Hamsa Al Masri

Lord Rotherwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Yemen has asked for the extradition of Abu Hamsa Al Masri to Yemen; whether they will (a) allow him to remain free in the United Kingdom, (b) find a safe third country for him, (c) detain him, or (d) extradite him to the Yemen.

Lord Rooker: It is Home Office policy not to make public announcements on individual extradition requests that may or may not have been received. This is to ensure that any on-going investigations by the relevant law enforcement agencies are not jeopardised in any way.
	The question of detention is a matter solely for the police.

Asset Recovery Strategy

Lord Tomlinson: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish the Government's Asset Recovery Strategy.

Lord Rooker: We are publishing the strategy today. Copies have been placed in the Vote Office and the Library and sent to the members of the Standing Committee currently considering the Proceeds of Crime Bill.
	The Asset Recovery Strategy is the first United Kingdom-wide initiative of its kind, in which the law enforcement, prosecution and relevant government bodies have joined together to commit themselves to making financial investigation and asset recovery a higher priority.
	The strategy's aims are: to make greater use of the investigation of criminal assets in the fight against crime; to recover money that has been made from crime or which is intended for use in crime; to prevent criminals and their associates from laundering the proceeds of criminal conduct and to detect and penalise such laundering where it occurs; and to use the proceeds recovered for the benefit of the community.
	The strategy sets out our objectives for meeting the challenging financial investigation target of recovering £60 million in confiscation and forfeiture receipts during the 2004–05 financial year. Hitting this target would achieve the Government's commitment of doubling amounts recovered from drug traffickers and other major criminals by 2004.
	It is not acceptable that people should enjoy the proceeds of criminal activity and live a life of luxury when it is built on the misery of victims or activities which damage or exploit society.
	The strategy we are publishing today sets out how we propose to push forward recovering criminal assets with partners both inside and outside government. Alongside the Proceeds of Crime Bill, the strategy will help take the profit out of crime and dismantle and disrupt criminal enterprises.
	The strategy will be updated with further targets when the Bill is implemented and the new assets recovery agency is established.

Asset Recovery Strategy

Baroness Whitaker: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to issue a modified code of practice for authorised officers in relation to their proposal to widen the scope of the cash seizure powers in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill.

Lord Rooker: Clause 1 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill enables my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to make whatever modifications he thinks are necessary or expedient to any code of practice in operation under Schedule 14 to the Terrorism Act 2000. Such modifications can be made in an order under Clause 123 of the Bill, bringing the cash seizure provisions in Schedule 1 to the Bill into force. My right honourable friend has today made available in the Library a draft code of practice for authorised officers showing where he believes the modifications are required. These modifications are still subject to final consultation with the police and others.

Airborne Launch Platforms

Lord Inglewood: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have asked Airbus if the A340 could be adapted to fulfil a military role equivalent to that carried out for the United States by the B52.

Lord Bach: The UK does not currently have a requirement for an airborne platform capable of delivering the same type or numbers of ordnance as carried by a B52. However, the UK does have a requirement to replace, towards the end of the next decade, the strike capability currently provided by the Tornado GR4 aircraft. This programme is known as the future offensive air system. While no decisions have yet been taken, we are currently looking at a potential mix of systems to deliver precision strike capability, including long-range cruise missiles, uninhabited air combat vehicles and manned aircraft. As part of this work the potential of large military and converted civil aircraft, such as the Airbus A340, to act as launch platforms for long-range conventional air launched cruise missiles is being considered.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

Lord Vivian: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the joint services unmanned aerial vehicle study will be completed.

Lord Bach: An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) study into the Ministry of Defence's management requirements for the introduction into service of UAVs has recently been completed and its findings are currently being considered.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

Lord Vivian: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many unmanned aerial vehicle flights were flown and how many were lost during Exercise Saif Sareea II.

Lord Bach: There were 21 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) flights during Exercise Saif Sareea II. One UAV flight ended before its mission was fully completed. The vehicle was recovered and the reasons for its apparent failure are being investigated.

Defence Exercises: Cancellation

Lord Vivian: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many training excursions for the Armed Forces have been cancelled in 2000 and 2001.

Lord Bach: Seventy-eight training exercises originally listed in the Ministry of Defence's Defence Exercise Programme (which lists some 350 exercises each year) and in the exercise programmes of the front line commands, the Permanent Joint HQ and the Defence Logistic Organisation HQ have been cancelled in 2000 and 2001. The number of unit-organised exercises which have been cancelled is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

Defence Exercises from Gibraltar

Lord Vivian: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many training exercises have been carried out for the Armed Forces in and from Gibraltar during the last three years.

Lord Bach: About 300 training exercises have been carried out by the UK Armed Forces in and from Gibraltar during the last three years.

Kosovo: UK Civilian Policing

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the level of the United Kingdom's civilian policing commitment to the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK).

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The UK currently contributes 140 civilian police officers, mainly on secondment from the Police Service for Northern Ireland and the Ministry of Defence Police, to UNMIK's international civilian police force. These officers are engaged in both operational duties to maintain civil law and order in Kosovo and in duties related to the work of UNMIK's Criminal Investigation Unit in Pristina. UNMIK police officers, including those seconded from the UK, played a key role in ensuring that the Kosovo elections on 17 November were conducted peacefully.
	On 6 December the UK will deploy 18 recently retired British police officers to Kosovo. The secondment of recently retired British police officers is a new initiative and will increase our commitment in Kosovo to 158 officers. This figure excludes Mr Chris Albiston, the Police Commissioner in Kosovo, who is a serving assistant chief constable on secondment from the Police Service for Northern Ireland. If this initial deployment of retired police officers proves successful, there might be scope for the deployment of increased numbers of retired policemen to peacekeeping duties with the UN in Kosovo and elsewhere.

Law Officers' Departments DEL

Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there are any plans to change the Law Officers' departments departmental expenditure limit and administration costs limits for 2001–02.

Lord Goldsmith: Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the Attorney-General's departments DEL will be increased by £25,375,000 from £426,088,000 to £451,463,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £22,476,000 from £299,627,000 to £322,103,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are set out in the following table:
	
		
			 Resources Capital 
			 Change New DEL Of Which Voted Non-voted Change New DEL Of Which Voted Non-voted 
			 £22,476,000 £429,814,000 £419,258,000 £10,556,000 £2,899,000 £21,649,000 £21,649,000 — 
		
	
	The Crown Prosecution Service DEL will be increased by £23,797,000 from £391,096,000 to £414,893,000 and the administration costs limit will be increased by £21,747,000 from £275,227,000 to £296,974,000. The increase in the resource element of the DEL arises from speeding up the reform of the CPS to allow it to contribute fully to criminal justice targets and implementation of Section 37 of the Vehicles (Crime) Reduction Act 2001. The decrease results from a transfer of £83,000 for work taken over by the Insolvency Service under Section 218, Insolvency Act 1986. The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from an increase of £1,750,000 to fund the introduction of joint CPS/police criminal justice and trial units and £300,000 to fund the provision of digital certificates for the secure transmission of case information.
	HM Procurator General and Treasury Solicitor's Department DEL will be increased by £1,578,000 from £14,167,000 to £15,745,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £729,000 from £9,900,000 to £10,629,000. The increase in administration costs is to facilitate action being taken by the Treasury Solicitor's department as part of its Modernising Government Action Plan. The increase in capital expenditure of £849,000 will be used to fund continued expansion of the department's IT systems.
	The increases will be partly offset by an allocation of £22,000,000 from the criminal justice system reserve, an allocation of £250,000 from the Civil Service Modernisation Fund, a transfer of £105,000 from the Home Office, an allocation of £300,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund, the drawn-down of £1,750,000 of the Attorney-General's departments capital departmental unallocated provision and the surrender of £99,000 of the Attorney-General's departments capital end year flexibility of £4,406,000 as set out in Table 6 of the Public Expenditure 2000–01 Outturn White Paper Cm 5243 published July 2001.
	The remainder of the expenditure will be charged to the reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

Foot and Mouth: Environmental Regulatory Framework Personnel

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the answer by Lord Whitty on 6 November (HL Deb, col. 131), whether they will clarify the number of Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs personnel who were transferred from work on the environmental regulatory framework to help with the foot and mouth outbreak and, of these, how many have not subsequently returned.

Lord Whitty: It is not possible to provide a meaningful answer in the form requested by the noble Baroness. At the height of the foot and mouth outbreak some 5,000 staff, including casual staff and those from other government departments, were employed in dealing with it. (This figure excludes personnel from the Armed Forces.) The numbers and composition of this workforce varied greatly over the months of the outbreak and cannot be readily broken down to identify the total contribution by staff who would otherwise have been engaged, wholly or partly, in environmental regulatory work. The development and implementation of the environmental regulatory framework involves input from a large number of divisions across DEFRA, as well as some of its associated non-departmental public bodies, and it would be disproportionately expensive to estimate working hours lost to this during the foot and mouth outbreak. Such an estimate to be meaningful would have to include, as well as staff movements, re-prioritising of work due to the demands of foot and mouth.
	An assessment of the impact of foot and mouth disease on the progress of the department's environmental regulation work would also need to include the effects of the outbreak upon the farming industry. The preoccupation of the industry itself with fighting the disease and the effects on the viability of some farm businesses meant that it would have been both insensitive and unproductive to continue consulting the industry on all environmental proposals in the pipeline and work was accordingly slowed down.

British Woodland Owners: Government Contracts

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will ensure that British woodland owners and timber-processors are able to quote for all government and statutory contracts for which their products can be used.

Lord Whitty: Each government department is responsible for its own purchasing decisions but they are required to obtain value for money for all procurements. This is usually obtained through open competition. Where the value of the contract exceeds certain thresholds, government purchasing procedures are regulated by statutory instruments that implement EC public procurement directives. These regulations ensure that public contracting authorities are transparent about their requirements and do not discriminate unfairly against suppliers of any nationality when selecting those to be invited to tender. Therefore, British woodland owners and timber-processors should have the opportunity to quote for relevant UK and foreign government contracts.

Swill Feeding

The Earl of Shrewsbury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they intend to ban the practice of feeding swill (otherwise known as catering waste) to pigs and other agricultural animals; and, if so, when.

Lord Whitty: A ban on the swill feeding of catering waste which contains or has come into contact with meat came into force on 24 May this year.

Rural White Paper

Lord Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress has been made in implementing the Rural White Paper.

Lord Whitty: Since publishing the Rural White Paper on 28 November 2000, we have taken decisive steps in delivering the plans we set out to develop and maintain a living, working, protected and vibrant countryside. We have provided substantial extra funding to boost basic local services such as rural schools, policing, local post offices, childcare and rural transport. To help local services we have extended mandatory 50 per cent rate relief to include sole village public houses, petrol stations and village food shops. We are helping to rejuvenate over 100 market towns by funding projects to stimulate thriving rural economies. Earlier this month we published plans to improve the quality and effectiveness of town and parish councils as part of our commitment to give rural communities a stronger voice. And we have just published the first draft maps for the new rights of access for walkers.
	Although alleviating the devastating effects of foot and mouth disease dominated our work for many months, a great deal has been accomplished. But there is still a lot more to be done. The creation of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is bringing a new focus and drive to the Government's policies for rural England. Together with partners, we are working to deliver a better future for all those who live, work in and visit the countryside. We will be publishing a full progress report in December. Our key achievements include:
	increased funding for rural schools, including the £80 million per year (2001–02 to 2003–04) Small Schools Fund to help resource sharing, administrative support and adoption of new technology;
	an additional £15 million in 2000–01 and £30 million in 2001–02 and 2002–03 to tackle the extra cost of policing in rural areas; also the launch of the on-line Rural Crime Toolkit, drawing on examples of good practice in rural policing;
	a new £2 million fund, now open to applications, to support community-driven projects to refurbish and improve rural sub-post offices—one part of the Goverment's commitment to maintain a national post office network;
	help to establish 8,728 new childcare places in the rural counties of Cornwall, Devon, Durham and Lincolnshire in 2000–01;
	increased investment in wider health and social services, which is expected to be of particular benefit to people in rural areas—for example, the programme to establish 100 new primary care one-stop or mobile units, as well as 5,000 intermediate care beds, many in local facilities such as cottage hospitals by 2004. The NHS Direct service, now running throughout England, also offers a major benefit to people living in more remote and rural areas;
	£62 million to improve rural bus services in 2001–02, with a total of £239 million allocated over the next three years for new and improved rural travel services;
	the Housing Corporation exceeded its target of approving 800 affordable homes in rural settlements last year by more than 200 (1,003 approvals), and has increased its target for this year to 1,100 rising to 1,600 by 2003–04;
	new Countryside Agency grant schemes in operation: £15 million community service grants fund to help safeguard or re-establish basic village facilities; £15 million parish transport fund for small-scale, locally generated transport solutions; and £5 million parish plans fund to help around 1,000 communities prepare their own village or town plans;
	new legislation, in force from August, extending 50 per cent mandatory rate relief to village food shops and new small-scale, non-agricultural enterprises on farms. This is additional to extending 50 per cent relief to sole village pubs and petrol stations in April;
	selection of over 100 towns to benefit from a £100 million market towns regeneration programme, to which the Government have allocated £37 million. Changes have also been made to planning policy guidance on transport (PPG13) to emphasise the role of market towns as hubs for jobs and services;
	changes made to planning policy guidance on the countryside (PPG7) giving stronger support to farm diversification and clarifying guidance on best and most versatile (BMV) land;
	publication of a consultation paper on quality parish and town councils, seeking views on plans to give councils an enhanced role for their communities; and
	publication of the Countryside Agency's Policy Maker's Checklist in April, to assist government and their agencies Xrural-proof" policies, now part of the Cabinet Office's rapid policy makers' checklist.

Greening Government

Lord Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they next intend to report on progress with Greening Government.

Lord Whitty: We are delighted to announce that Greening Government: Third Annual Report 2001 will be published today. The report will be presented in two parts. Part 1 is a summary of the achievements across government against the commitments set out in the work programme in last year's report. Part 2 of the report will be in the form of a database giving details of the performance of every department. The database will be available on the Government's sustainable development website—www.sustainable-development.gov.uk.
	The information contained within Part 2 will be transferred to a CD-ROM and placed alongside copies of Part 1 in the Libraries of both Houses.

Northern Ireland: Gas TransportationTariff

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have calculated the negative impact on Northern Ireland consumers and business of the gas transportation tariffs in the United Kingdom.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Gas is supplied to Northern Ireland under a commercial contract between Centrica plc and Phoenix Natural Gas plc, the main gas supplier in Northern Ireland. This contract is a matter for the parties involved.
	Gas transportation charges in Great Britain are levied by Transco and regulated by Ofgem, the independent regulator through Transco's price control. Centrica has to pay transportation charges on the national transmission system to ship gas to Northern Ireland and I understand that it prices the level of these charges into the prices it charges customers, including Phoenix.
	The extent to which Centrica's transportation charges are passed through to Phoenix is a commercial matter between Phoenix and Centrica.

Northern Ireland: Gas TransportationTariff

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, with respect to Northern Ireland, they will refer Centrica plc and its implementation of the gas transportation tariffs in the United Kingdom to Ofgem.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I believe the noble Lord is alluding to the contract under which Centrica plc ships gas through the national transmission system and on through the Scotland-Northern Ireland interconnector for Phoenix Natural Gas plc, the main supplier in Northern Ireland. This contract is a commercial matter between the two parties.
	The price at which Centrica sells gas to Pheonix comprises energy charges and transportation charges. I understand that Phoenix has raised concerns regarding the level of transportation charges levied through its contract. These transportation charges are levied on Centrica and other shippers by Transco and regulated by Ofgem. Centrica prices the level of these charges into its gas contracts with customers, including Phoenix.
	If Phoenix believes that its contract with Centrica is no longer commercially favourable, it will no doubt give consideration to any options it may have to reviewing these arrangements.

Healthcall Contract

Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Considering that Healthcall, one of the two contractors to the Department of Trade and Industry, was recently subject to acquisition by another Company, Nestor Healthcare Group plc, and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry decided not to refer that acquisition to the Office of Fair Trading, whether any audit was undertaken to establish that such acquisition would not prejudice or otherwise delay Healthcall's contractual obligations to the department.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry decided, on the information present before her at that time, not to refer the proposed acquisition by Nestor Healthcare Group plc of HCMS Limited (Healthcall) to the Competition Commission. This was in accordance with the recommendation of the Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT) on the case.
	The effect of the acquisition on the execution of Healthcall's contract with the department was not considered as part of the DGFT's analysis, nor was it considered by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in reaching her decision.

Higher Education Funding

Lord Baker of Dorking: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the amount provided by the state, through public sector funding (both national and local) to higher education in each of the last 20 years, expressed as a percentage of the gross domestic product.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The proportion of GDP spent on UK higher education by the government for each financial year, both including and excluding the DTI/OST science budget, is given in the attached table, along with the spending figures and latest GDP figures. From 1998, students taking full-time undergraduate courses, and their families, made a contribution to tuition fees on a means tested basis. The table also shows public expenditure on higher education when those contributions are taken into account.
	All three sets of figures include expenditure from public funds on tuition fees, maintenance awards and student loans. Figures for 2001-02 and 2002-03 are based on current spending plans. The proportions will vary depending upon the performance of the economy, which determines the level of GDP.
	Total public spending on higher education in the UK is currently around £10 billion. By 2002-03, public spending on higher education in the UK, excluding the science budget, will have increased by just over 26 per cent in cash terms compared with 1998-99: a real terms increase of 15 per cent.
	
		
			 Year GDP CASH (£billion) HE Spend Including Science Budget (£billion) HE Spend Including Science Budget as % of GDP HE Spend excluding Science Budget (£billion) HE Spend Excluding Science Budget as % of GDP HE Spend Inclusive of Tuition fee Income from Students and their families Including Science Budget (£billion) HE Spend Inclusive of Tuition fee Income from Students and their families Including Science Budget as % of GDP 
			 1981–82 259.45 3.44 1.33% 2.99 1.15% — — 
			 1982–83 283.44 3.67 1.29% 3.18 1.12% — — 
			 1983–84 308.07 3.93 1.27% 3.42 1.11% — — 
			 1984–85 330.70 4.07 1.23% 3.52 1.06% — — 
			 1985–86 362.81 4.20 1.16% 3.61 1.00% — — 
			 1986–87 388.13 4.43 1.14% 3.81 0.98% — — 
			 1987–88 431.24 4.76 1.10% 4.10 0.95% — — 
			 1988–89 479.93 5.11 1.06% 4.41 0.92% — — 
			 1989–90 525.14 5.62 1.07% 4.80 0.91% — — 
			 1990–91 563.74 6.20 1.10% 5.31 0.94% — — 
			 1991–92 595.05 6.97 1.17% 6.06 1.02% — — 
			 1992–93 615.40 7.82 1.27% 6.77 1.10% — — 
			 1993–94 653.58 8.38 1.28% 7.21 1.10% — — 
			 1994–95 690.58 8.96 1.30% 7.73 1.12% — — 
			 1995–96 729.00 9.36 1.28% 8.07 1.11% — — 
			 1996–97 772.92 9.17 1.19% 7.86 1.02% — — 
			 1997–98 824.40 9.40 1.14% 8.07 0.98% — — 
			 1998–99 868.81 9.30 1.07% 7.97 0.92% 9.44 1.09% 
			 1999–00 914.9 9.75 1.07% 8.25 0.90% 10.02 1.09% 
			 2000–01 954.8 10.50 1.10% 8.91 0.93% 10.82 1.13% 
			 2001–02 990.0 11.41 1.15% 9.65 0.97% 11.79 1.19% 
			 2002–03 1,036 11.99 1.16% 10.08 0.97% 12.40 1.20%

Measles, Mumps and Rubella Immunisation

Lord Harris of Haringey: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What the measles, mumps and rubella immunisation rates were in each of the London health authorities (a) in the latest year for which figures are available, and (b) for each of the previous two years.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The measles, mumps and rubella immunisation rates for children by their second birthday, in each of the London health authorities in the last three years for which information is available, is shown in the following table.
	
		Percentage of children immunised against measles, mumps and rubella by their 2nd birthday, by health authority.
		
			 Health Authority 2000–01 1999–00 1998–99 
			 England 87 88 88 
			 London 79 80 82 
			 Barking & Havering 89 88 88 
			 Barnet 83 83 85 
			 Bexley & Greenwich 73 78 83 
			 Brent & Harrow 85 83 87 
			 Bromley 73 81 85 
			 Camden & Islington 81 80 81 
			 Croydon 78 74 71 
			 Ealing, Hammersmith &  Hounslow 81 77 81 
			 East London & The City 79 79 79 
			 Enfield & Haringey 78 82 84 
			 Hillingdon 84 85 87 
			 Kensington, Chelsea &  Westminster 74 76 84 
			 Kingston & Richmond 76 81 81 
			  
			 Lambeth, Southwark &  Lewisham 73 76 77 
			 Merton, Sutton &  Wandsworth 75 82(1) 82(1) 
			 Redbridge & Waltham  Forest 92 91 91 
		
	
	(1) Data not available: 1997–98 data shown.

Measles, Mumps and Rubella Immunisation

Lord Harris of Haringey: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What the costs to the National Health Service are of 10,000 doses of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine; and what the costs to the National Health Service would be of 10,000 separate doses of vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The United Kingdom is supplied by two manufacturers of MMR vaccine and by one supplier of rubella vaccine. The cost to the Department of Health of purchasing MMR and rubella vaccines is commercially confidential. However, the list price of a single dose of MMR vaccine is £6.23 for that manufactured by SmithKline Beecham and £9.22 for that manufactured by Aventis Pasteur. The list price for rubella vaccine, manufactured by SmithKline Beecham, is £2.53 per vial. Children are recommended to receive two doses of MMR vaccine. Rubella vaccine is recommended for non-immune women. No licensed single component mumps or measles vaccines are manufactured for or marketed in the United Kingdom.
	Seperate measles, mumps and rubella vaccines in place of MMR have never been recommended by the Government's independent expert advisory committees on immunisation. As a result, no estimates have been made of the cost of giving separate vaccines. Cost is not an issue in decisions over MMR immunisation.

NHS Information Network

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 13 November (WA 73):
	(a) how much was invested by the National Health Service in information management and technology in 2000–01;
	(b) how much is planned to be invested in each of the years 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04; and
	(c) against what baseline the National Health Service Plan target of an extra £250 million invested in 2003–04 is to be measured.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Figures of total spend on information management and technology in the National Health Service are not recorded separately. The future investment will vary according to local plans and priorities; these will be funded from both new targeted funds and existing baseline.
	The new investment is aimed to speed up local implementation. The sums are separately identified within allocations and their spend against plan is monitored in the Service and Financial Framework process.

Health Department DEL

Baroness Goudie: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there are any proposals to amend the Department of Health departmental expenditure limit and administration cost limit for 2001-02.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Department of Health departmental expenditure limit (DEL) will be increased by £768,348,000 from £49,805,054,000 to £50,573,402,000 and the administration cost limit will be increased by £9,701,000 from £312,234,000 to £321,935,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are set out in the following table:
	
		£000s 
		
			 Resources Capital 
			 Change New DEL Of Which Voted Non-voted Change New DEL Of Which Voted Non-voted 
			 617,391 48,334,111 48,923,590 589,479 150,957 2,239,291 254,195 1,985,096 
		
	
	The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from the take up of end year flexibility £359,377,000 (£9,000,000 administration costs) as set out in Table 6 of the Public Expenditure 2000-01 Provisional Outturn White Paper Cm 5243 published in July 2001.
	Transfers of provision from the Home Office of £21,173,000 (£400,000 administration costs) mainly for the National Treatment Agency and drug treatment services and research. A net transfer from the Scottish Executive comprising an increase of £1,188,000 (£128,000 administration costs) for contributions to the cost of non-departmental public bodies, committee, the high security infectious disease unit, HIV surveillance funding and post-graduate medical education, offset by £819,000 for out of area treatment costs. A net transfer from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions of £4,950,000 (£5,100,000 of which £100,000 administration costs) mainly for the teenage pregnancy unit, offset by £150,000 for mobility centres. From the Office of Government Commerce £50,000 for Avonbridge House. From the Office of Science and Technology £45,000 (administration costs) for a contribution to the Human Genetics Commission. To the Department for Education and Skills £4,097,000 for education health partnerships and educational advisers. A net transfer from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of £1,000,000 for research offset by a transfer of £100,000 for a contribution to rural stress action teams. To the Department for Work and Pensions £509,000 for the costs of Care Direct and preserved rights cases. A transfer to the Food Standards Agency of £15,000 (administration costs) for the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition. A change in the level of non-DEL provision for NHS trust depreciation of £240,000,000, now reclassified as part of DEL, and a reallocation from resources to capital of £4,852,000 for costs associated with the National Care Standards Commission and Social Care Institute for Excellence.
	The administration cost limit has been increased by £9,701,000 from £312,234,000 to £321,935,000. In addition to the changes detailed above, there is a further net increase of £43,000 comprising an increase in the Medical Device Agency's costs of £223,000 for assessment and evaluation of devices, offset by a reduction of £180,000 in respect of the NHS Appointments Commission.
	The change to the capital element of the DEL arises from the take up of end year flexibility of £95,632,000 as set out in Table 6 of the Public Expenditure 2000–01 Provisional Outturn White Paper Cm 5243 published in July 2001. From the Capital Modernisation Fund £50,000,000 to support the NHS capital programme and a reallocation from resource DEL of £4,852,000 and a transfer from the Scottish Executive of £50,000 for a contribution to non-departmental public bodies.
	The take up of non-voted supplementary credit approvals for personal social services in England has increased by £423,000 from £18,700,000 to £19,123,000 in respect of the take up of end year flexibility entitlement mentioned above.
	The increase will be offset by inter-departmental transfers and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

Tourism

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which regional development agencies are giving practical and financial support to initiatives which aim to generate domestic tourism; and what is the nature of that support.

Baroness Blackstone: All regional development agencies (RDAs) are essential partners in implementing the Government's economic and regeneration policy for regional development. As such, they are increasingly involved in promoting the tourism industry. Recent draft RDA corporate planning guidance requires them to liaise with regional tourist boards (RTBs) and co-operate in the production of regional tourism strategies. This co-ordination will ensure that tourism represents a vital, growing element of the regional economies.
	The nature of RDA support is broad. For example, during the foot and mouth outbreak RDAs have provided assistance to rural businesses, including tourism, through a government funded £74 million recovery fund. Affected small businesses were eligible for assistance, such as marketing support, business advice and grants to help meet interest payments on bank loans.

Equality of Treatment: Election Candidates

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they intend the exceptions made by the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill to Parts II to IV of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to be read and given effect in accordance with the principle of proportionality; and
	Whether the exceptions made by the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill to Parts II to IV of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 must be read and given effect in accordance with the principle of proportionality so as to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and its First Protocol, and European Community Law; and, if not, why not.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The way in which the exceptions made by the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill to Parts II to IV of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 will be construed is a matter for the courts. The Government can give no assurance that alters that fact. Nonetheless the points raised by the noble Lord are important ones and bear examination.
	The Government's view is that the selection of candidates falls outside the scope of the Equal Treatment Directive. Our view is that being a Member of Parliament is not an occupation that falls within the scope of the directive. Furthermore, we take the view that the directive does not apply to the electoral process: selection for election is not comparable to normal selection for employment. The principle of proportionality in this respect would not therefore be relevant.
	Political parties are, of course, free to take their own legal advice on the point. As with any legislation, particularly where no specific measures are imposed, it is not for the Government to give guarantees that acts done under the legislation are lawful. Ultimately it is for the courts to decide.
	It is not clear that the European Convention on Human Rights is engaged. The Government have, however, borne in mind when proceeding with this legislation that the convention could apply and that it might do so because Article 14, along with Article 3 of the First Protocol, is engaged.
	Assuming that the ECHR is engaged, although the Government do not accept that political parties are public authorities for the purposes of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, it is accepted that there is an argument that the convention has horizontal effect, so that the Bill would be interpreted in accordance with convention rights as between private parties.
	Assuming that the convention does have this effect, it will be necessary for any measure adopted by a particular political party to be proportionate in ECHR terms. The Bill is permissive. How a political party will use it is a matter for that party: it is about choice and flexibility. It is inevitable that parties will have to take their own legal advice about whether, and, if so, to what extent, the principle of proportionality applies. This is no different from any other case of permissive, non-prescriptive legislation.
	Whether a particular measure chosen by a party is proportionate will ultimately be a matter for the courts to decide and, to the extent that the ECHR may be engaged, we would expect the courts to follow any human rights jurisprudence on proportionality.
	As the noble Lord is aware, CEDAW (which relates only to discrimination against women) and the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights give rise to international obligations for the UK.
	The Government regard those obligations with the utmost seriousness. It is clear, however, that international obligations do not become part of domestic law unless incorporated into it. Such international obligations do not in the Government's view give individuals a source of rights and obligations that can be enforced directly before the UK courts. In some instances the courts will construe legislation with the presumption in mind that it should be interpreted compatibly with international obligations, but this is the case only where the legislation is ambiguous. To the extent that these treaties would require the exceptions made by the Bill to be read and given effect in accordance with the principle of proportionality, our view is that it is unlikely that they will add anything further to any other considerations of proportionality.

Civil Partnership Registration

Baroness Ludford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have made any assessment of the impact on the societies of (a) Belgium, (b) Denmark, (c) France, (d) Germany, (e) Norway, (f) Iceland, (g) Spain, (h) Sweden, and (i) The Netherlands, of the decision of each to permit civil partnerships, including for same sex couples; and what plans they have to introduce similar arrangements in the United Kingdom.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Government have made no assessment of the impact of civil partnership registration in any of the countries listed.
	Civil partnership registration and associated rights and responsibilities raise a number of complex issues which have prompted a growing debate within society, and the Government are watching this debate with interest.
	These issues potentially have significant financial and administrative implications, and the Government cannot commit themselves to making any changes in these areas before undertaking a comprehensive analysis of all the implications. The Government will now be examining the issues in detail.

Baroness Morgan of Huyton

The Earl of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether Baroness Morgan of Huyton will be paid from Labour Party funds in connection with her duties in the Prime Minister's office.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, is paid from government funds for the part of her work that relates to government business and from the Labour Party for the part of her work that is Labour Party business.

Baroness Morgan of Huyton

Lord Northbrook: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether Baroness Morgan of Huyton acquired pension rights as a result of her service as a Minister; and, if so, on what financial basis those rights were granted.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: As a Minister of Her Majesty's Government, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, was eligible to join the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund (PCPF) if she so wished. All members of the PCPF are required to pay contributions, currently at a rate of 6 per cent, on their pensionable salary.

Mandelkern Group Report

Lord Milner of Leeds: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress has been made by the Mandelkern Group on better regulation since the last report to this House in March.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The Mandelkern Group has met five times since March 2001 and at its last meeting on 12-13 November adopted its final report. This report was presented by the group's chairman, M. Dieudonne Mandelkern, to the Internal Market, Consumer and Tourism Council on 26 November and has been sent to the Presidents of the European Commission, European Parliament and Council of Ministers. I have placed a copy of the report in the Library of the House.
	The report represents a significant achievement. For the first time, representatives of all 15 member states have signed up to a document setting out in detail the actions that need to be undertaken in order to improve Europe's regulatory environment. It contains a number of concrete, practical recommendations and an action plan with realistic timings. In particular, the action plan asks the Commission to: establish a new, comprehensive impact assessment system, covering all Commission regulatory proposals, by June 2002; establish a central web-based consultation register for all EU consultations by June 2002; adopt a standard minimum 16-week consultation period from March 2002; spearhead a 40 per cent reduction in the volume of Community acts by June 2004, arising from a concerted codification of European legislation by the Institutions; launch a new targeted simplification programme by June 2002 of existing European legislation in all areas; and create throughout the Commission a centrally supported, effective network for better regulation by June 2002.
	The Government fully support the Mandelkern Group's report and will be working closely with other member states and the institutions of the EU to seek acceptance and timely implementation of its main recommendations.